graduated_podlings_by_year

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no results are found. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding, earning its place by stating the core purpose concisely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how filters interact, or provide context to distinguish from alternatives, leaving gaps for the AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, thus achieving the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'podlings that graduated' with a condition 'in a specific year'. However, given multiple sibling tools like 'completed_podlings_by_year', it does not differentiate what 'graduated' means versus 'completed' or 'active', leading to potential ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. For example, it does not specify that this tool should be used for graduated podlings only, whereas 'completed_podlings_by_year' might include retired ones. No when-not-to-use information is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.